Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct.

1399 (Supreme Court 2011)

Facts:

Defendant Galin Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license. Fry was indicted for

Class D crime that had held up to four years in prison as he was convicted of the same offense on

three other occasions. The prosecutor sent a letter to Frye 's lawyers offering an option of two

plea bargains, one of which was a three-year sentence but proposed that Frye spend only 10 days

in jail and the other reduce the charge to a misdemeanor and spend 90 days in jail. However, the

letter stated that the plea offers expired within a few weeks. Frye 's counsel never told him of the

plea bargain offers and the offers expired. Eventually, Frye pleaded guilty to the charge without

offering a plea bargain. Frye was sentenced by the trial court to three years in jail. Frye

subsequently filed in state court for post-conviction relief claiming that the inability of his

attorney to convey the plea proposed to him deprived him effective counseling assistance in

violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Issue:

Does the Sixth Amendment require the defense counsel to make a formal plea offer from the

prosecutor to the defendant?

Holding:

The Court held that (1) the performance of the defense counsel must be defective and (2) the

deficiency must have adversely affected the defendant in order to find that the defendant did not

receive a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rationale:

In addition to court holding in Strickland, the Missouri Court of Appeals depended on Hill v.

Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), and Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), 1473 (2010)
when it came to the conclusion that Frye 's counsel was unsuccessful in failing to express the

formal plea of the prosecution to Frye. The Court also held that the defense counsel was duty-

bound to include formal prosecution offers that might favor an accused with pleas under

conditions. When counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising or allowing the

respondent to consider the offer, counsel did not provide legally effective assistance. However,

the respondent had to demonstrate prejudice from ineffective assistance under Strickland. The

Court concluded that the State Appeal Court erred in not requiring the respondent to show not

only a reasonable possibility that the lapse of the plea would have been accepted, but also a

reasonable possibility that the prosecutor would have adhered to the plea and that it would have

been accepted by the trial court.

Google Scholar Link

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16929683133924452834&q=missouri+v.+Frye,

+132+S.+Ct.+1399+-+Supreme+Court+2012&hl=en&as_sdt=4000003